arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Performance Analysis Technique: An Approach for Understanding the Differences Between Work‐as‐Imagined and Work‐as‐Done

Atif Mohammed Ashraf et al.

Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing2026https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.70029article
AJG 1
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are widely recognized as essential in maintaining safe operations in high‐risk industries, such as oil and gas and petrochemicals. However, limited research has been conducted on the discrepancies between the intended work process (Work as Imagined or WAI) and the actual work process (Work as Done or WAD) under normal working conditions, particularly in these industries. While employees may not always strictly adhere to procedure steps when executing tasks, designing SOPs that allow for adaptation to changing conditions while maintaining adherence remains a challenge. To address this gap, a new approach is proposed in this study that combines two concepts: Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) and Abstraction Hierarchy (AH) from work domain analysis. HTA breaks down tasks into a hierarchy of subtasks, while AH decomposes the procedural system into four levels with means‐ends relationships. The combination forms the Performance Analysis Technique (PAT). The PAT approach is demonstrated using an SOP for a column flushing task that is part of a three‐phase separation system. The results showed that the PAT could visually demonstrate where and how workers make deviations and adaptations to complete a task. This new approach has the potential to improve the design and implementation of SOPs in high‐risk industries, enhancing safety and operational efficiency in these environments. The study also highlights the importance of collaboration between procedure writers and frontline workers to design more flexible procedures that recognize adaptation risks.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.70029

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{atif2026,
  title        = {{Performance Analysis Technique: An Approach for Understanding the Differences Between Work‐as‐Imagined and Work‐as‐Done}},
  author       = {Atif Mohammed Ashraf et al.},
  journal      = {Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.70029},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Performance Analysis Technique: An Approach for Understanding the Differences Between Work‐as‐Imagined and Work‐as‐Done

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.